So when we transistion to IPv6, will every device have a static IP?

R

Ryan711

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,173
From what I've read there would seem to be enough IPs available for every person on earth to have trillions upon trillions of IPs each. So it would make sense for every network capable device to have a static IP. Then again, I don't pretend to know much about it. Has there been any plans or announcements on how ISPs are going to handle it.

Another thing, will everyone have to upgrade to new routers or would it be as simple as turning NAT off on existing ones?
 
I'm fairly certain this won't be the case. ISP's will still have to buy blocks of IP addresses.
Consumers and Businesses will still want the security and privacy of being connected to a private network. I don't think we'll be at a point where LAN's are obsolete for a looooooooong time
 
Every device having a static ip. What a nightmare to setup on some networks.
 
IntelOwnz said:
I'm fairly certain this won't be the case. ISP's will still have to buy blocks of IP addresses.
Consumers and Businesses will still want the security and privacy of being connected to a private network. I don't think we'll be at a point where LAN's are obsolete for a looooooooong time
Click to expand...

I still envision routers/firewalls and private lans existing, but my question was instead of the typical NAT address of 192.168.X.XX would all of your devices behind your router/firewall be issued an IPv6 IP adress that would be static. Like I said, I"m not networking or security expert, but that wouldn't be that much less secure that a typical NAT setup would it?

I mean, I can't see any good reason why this wouldn't be the case. ISPs shouldn't have too much trouble obtaining enough IP addresses considering there will be so many available. Issue a few hundred trillion to each ISP and if they need more they can pay:D. That's probably a gross oversimplication of it though.
 
Since IPv6 doesn't include NAT, every device will need to have a unique IP for the network it is on. A firewall will make a section of that network private.
 
You can do NAT with IPv6 though, there's no reason it wouldn't work. But no reason to use it either.

Consumers and Businesses will still want the security and privacy of being connected to a private network. I don't think we'll be at a point where LAN's are obsolete for a looooooooong time
Click to expand...
NAT providing filtering is a side-effect. You can just use a firewall instead to accomplish the same behaviour without NAT.

ARIN's IPv6 policy requires ISPs to provide at least a /64 to every end user.

6.5.4. Assignments from LIRs/ISPs

LIRs must make IPv6 assignments in accordance with the following provisions.
6.5.4.1. Assignment address space size

End-users are assigned an end site assignment from their LIR or ISP. The exact size of the assignment is a local decision for the LIR or ISP to make, using a minimum value of a /64 (when only one subnet is anticipated for the end site) up to the normal maximum of /48, except in cases of extra large end sites where a larger assignment can be justified.

The following guidelines may be useful (but they are only guidelines):

* /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed
* /56 for small sites, those expected to need only a few subnets over the next 5 years.
* /48 for larger sites

For end sites to whom reverse DNS will be delegated, the LIR/ISP should consider making an assignment on a nibble (4-bit) boundary to simplify reverse lookup delegation.

RIRs are not concerned about which address size an LIR/ISP actually assigns. Accordingly, RIRs will not request the detailed information on IPv6 user networks as they did in IPv4, except for the cases described in Section 6.4.4 and for the purposes of measuring utilization as defined in this document.
Click to expand...
 
Personally I still see alot of RFC 1918 sticking around, it will be just natted to the ipv6 internet much like those private class address are nat-ted to the public internet now.
 
The wikipedia entry for IPv6 has an interesting section titled Larger Address Space, where it is noted:

"Renumbering an existing network for a new connectivity provider with different routing prefixes is a major effort with IPv4, as discussed in RFC 2071 and RFC 2072. With IPv6, however, changing the prefix announced by a few routers can in principle renumber an entire network since the host identifiers (the least-significant 64 bits of an address) can be independently self-configured by a host."

In other words, it's not just about more address space, but being able to much more easily and efficiently manage that address space.
 
I feel that IPv4 is going to be sticking with us for many, many years. A lot of your private networks would have a static IPv6 address, but think about the nightmare many of the larger companies would have to go through if they switch to full IPv6. Protocols such as dual-stacking will help to alleviate some of the stress by implementing a hybrid IPv4/IPv6 network. IPv6 is most definitely taking networks in the right direction, but it will take a very long time for us to see IPv4 networks phased out, and all networks running off of statically assigned IPv6 addresses.
 
I think we'll see mobile devices and network backbones push towards IPv6 for those who have not already. IPv4 will remain using for smaller business/homes for a long time to come. I do think though that some ISPs will start using IPv6 for their wan links to host.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top